‘RECEIVED'
.r-
BEFORE THE
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C.
2026*-ooo1
Nov26
2 1; PM '36
pOST*LRATECOHHI:;SIcH
OFF,CE IOFTHE SECREIARY
Special
Services
Fees
and Classifications
)
Docket
MC96-3
No.
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE MOTION TO REQUIRE
THE POSTAL SERVICE TO PROVIDE DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION
RULES FOR THE PROPOSED NONRESIDENT BOX FEE AND
A WITNESS TO STAND CROSS-EXAMINATION ON SUCH DRAFT RULES
(November
26, 1996)
The Office
the
Postal
of
Service
implementation
fee
and
the
stand
oral
rules
became
for
cross-examination
apparent
witness
being
considered
by
"developing
rulemaking,
would
the
require,
proposed
,,I-=
Tr.
8/X212.
a hearing
proposals
out
the
evaluating
for
a set
the
draft
The need
on November
answered
work
that
would
post
rules
for
office
such
25,
1.996,
charged
be contained
methods
fee.i
what
of
box
who will
groups"
various
that
draft
about
of
box
moves
questions
practicalities
a nonresident
of
nonresident
about
"implementation
[and]
rule"
provide
proposed
Raymond
figuring
(OCA) hereb'y
on them.
at
Service
of
the
to
knowledgeable
Postal
duty
Advocate
be required
rules
a witness
Consumer
when
rules
in
the
draft
with
a
ruble
approaching
the
Docket
No.
MC96-3
During
,r_
alarming
in
re-direct
examination
inconsistencies
this
proceeding
exchange
with
were
occurred
at
the
the
of
Service
'counsel,
Service's
For
example,
the
fs>rmal
the
the
the
rsequest
following
re-direct
examination:
Is there
another
name for
or fee that
is being
touted
A.
[Mr. Raymond1
I think
service
fee.
It eliminated
"resident."
T.
Postal
beginning
Hollies]
surcharge
term?
resident
better
by Postal
revealed.
[Mr.
Q.
065999
2
the nonas a
term was alternative
use of the word
a/3298.
The Request
on Special
1996
Service
(emphasis
proposal
office
of
for
the
Postal
Changes,
added),
Service
Attachment
contains
a change
to
for
the
the
a Recommended
B at
Postal
Special
5-6,
n.
Service's
Services
1,
Decision
June
7,
formal
schedule
for
post
boxes:
In addition
to the fees specified,
all
customers
will
be subject
to an additional
semi-annual
$18.00
nonresident
fee per box
unless
they receive,
pursuant
to postal
regulations,
an exemption
based upc.n
proof
of local
residency.
The Postal
Service
to
either
modify,
rules),
these
rebuttal
the
five
is
formally
or
that
has
proposal
months.
testimony
now stating
that
due to
may be prepared
informally
(by
been
consideration
The proceeding
is
it
be filed
under
is
now in
in
implementation
its
final
approximately
for,
lo,
stageten
days
Docket
and
No.
the
MC96-3
filing
3
of
participants'
briefs
due process
U.S.C.
§§ 556 and
Postal
Service's
Raymond
they
are
time
that
soon
557 to
case
indicated
follows.
rights
under
be faced
with
so late
that
the
now understood,
in
the
details
could
a recommended
It
is
39 U.S.C.
possible
of
the
changes
by the
in
5
the
witness
fee,
alteration
Commission
the
and
Indeed,
nonresident
to
of
§ 3624(a)
proceeding.
be subject
decision
a violation
as
up to
the
iis issued,
e.g.,
[Mr.
Q.
current
Service
A.
the
Tr.
Hollies1
Do your comments
thinking
or the final
thinking
on implementation?
[Witness
Raymond]
It is the
Postal
Service
on implementation.
8/3299
(emphasis
added);
today
reflect
the
of the I?ostal
current
thinking
of
and:
Has there
been a final
decision,
even fin,al
to
point
of that
which appears
in the status
report
regarding
how long,
for example,
somebody must stay
their
second home in order
to qualify
as a resident?
the
Q.
A.
yet.
No.
Such
details
Do your comments
thinking
or the final
implementation?
Q.
It is the
A.
on implementation.
During
inchoate
implementation
of
rules:
been
thinking
examination,
the
not
today reflect
thinking
of
current
re-cross
state
have
Postal
of
witness
Service's
worked
the
the
the
out
at
as
current
Postal
S,ervice
Postal
Raymond
development
on
Service
reaffirmed
of
the
the
006001
Docket
No.
MC96-3
4
1n answering
your question
-- and I hope in answering
all
questions
at that
point
-- I attempted
to reflect
current
thinking
on the implementation
team, by no
means prejudice
the final
outcome
of our proces;;
by
saying,
"here
is how it is going
to be definitely
or
here is how it is not going
to be."
Tr.
lines
B/3307,
Later,
5-10
witness
Raymond
added:
We would really
like
to have our thoughts
fairly
articulated
in writing
at the time
Commission
comes back with
its decision.
after
the first
of the year,
I guess.
Tr.
lines
B/3313,
OCA
the
first
that
rules
of
Commission
the
available
to
only
releasing
so late
year"-is
interests.
was necessary
Sometime
3-6.
submits
implementation
and d'ecisions
the
preliminary
in
highly
Witness
have
after
the
of
the
proceeding--"[sJometime
prejudicial
Raymond
a relatively
the
formulations
seemed
well
recommended
to
participant
to
believe
developed
decision
after
set
and
that
of
rules
was issued:
We will
have to publish
a proposed
rule,
of course,
subsequent
to the Commission's
rendering
a recommended
We will
have to make these decisions;
and
decision.
I couldn't
give you an
form that
between
now and then.
exact
date.
Tr.
B/3311
As
a
matter
implementation
decision,
I’--
of
rules,
cannot
logic,
based
be finalized
it
is
well
on the
until
understood
Commission's
the
decision
that
the
final
recommended
is,
in
fact,
it
Docket
,-...
No.
issued.
MC96-3
However,
implementation
fee
overdue.
by the
the
of
is
and
that
work
great
access
to
briefs
are
such
the
to
(January
other
knowledgeable
submit
rebuttal
witness
a draft
set
Service's
of
Request
is
test&my
now under
for
long
consideration
may be inconsistent
now be required
Request.
in
7,
that
draft
which
its
testimony
well
OCA moves
reasoning,
are
reflecting
and the
a draft
due
rules
should
underlying
Postal
supporting
groups
rules
Decision
of
with
concern.
Service
implementation
witnesses
development
the
proposal
of
Postal
Recommended
when
for
reflecting
implementation
Request
Service
time
The indication
The
set
the
rules
a nonresident
006002
5
advance
In
Presiding
implementation
testimony
is
due,
who may stand
of
file
Request
Postal
for
time
with
Officer
direct
SHELLEY
identify
cross-examination
Attorney
this
the
Postal
6,
1996,
a
on such
submitted,
S.-DREIFUSS
initial
on December
rules.
Respectfully
have
that
accordance
and to
a
should
the
rules
a draft
Service
Participants
1996).
the
of
to
u
Docket
No.
MC96-3
OGGOO3
6
,--.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby
document
accordance
upon
with
certify
all
that
I have
participants
section
OF SERVICE
3.B(3)
this
of
record
of
the
date
in
special
served
this
20268-0001
foregoing
proceeding
rules
SHELLEY S. -DREIFUSS
Attorney
Washington,
D.C.
November
26, 1996
the
of
in
practice.